proof #999999 that I am a huge nerd
from my final exam for my rhetoric/politics class:
Describe an argument situation in one paragraph. Then using Aguers as lovers/harassers, The common ground, OR The rational and reasonable, analyze that argument in two paragraphs. (15)
A man named Jean Valjean broke a window and stole a loaf of bread from a house in order to feed his sister and her babies. He was convicted and sentenced to many years in prison. He is now arguing with a policeman named Javert about the moral justification for this act of stealing. “My sister’s child was close to death, and we were starving!” says/sings Valjean. “You will starve again, unless you learn the meaning of the law!” replies the uncompromising Javert, who wants to return Valjean to prison.
Javert is arguing for a rational approach to the situation, in which the punishment for stealing would be universal and above context-specific qualifications. From Javert’s perspective, law cannot function if it is context-specific; such emotion-driven governance would result in social chaos.
Valjean, meanwhile, is arguing that his situation justifies a reasonable approach that would take his circumstance into consideration. He appeals to Javert to use common sense and adjust existing rules according to his specific situation.
I AM SO COOL.
It's like theater and formal logic had a severely deformed bastard love child.
Anyway.
Describe an argument situation in one paragraph. Then using Aguers as lovers/harassers, The common ground, OR The rational and reasonable, analyze that argument in two paragraphs. (15)
A man named Jean Valjean broke a window and stole a loaf of bread from a house in order to feed his sister and her babies. He was convicted and sentenced to many years in prison. He is now arguing with a policeman named Javert about the moral justification for this act of stealing. “My sister’s child was close to death, and we were starving!” says/sings Valjean. “You will starve again, unless you learn the meaning of the law!” replies the uncompromising Javert, who wants to return Valjean to prison.
Javert is arguing for a rational approach to the situation, in which the punishment for stealing would be universal and above context-specific qualifications. From Javert’s perspective, law cannot function if it is context-specific; such emotion-driven governance would result in social chaos.
Valjean, meanwhile, is arguing that his situation justifies a reasonable approach that would take his circumstance into consideration. He appeals to Javert to use common sense and adjust existing rules according to his specific situation.
I AM SO COOL.
It's like theater and formal logic had a severely deformed bastard love child.
Anyway.